Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Exposing Judges

Expand Messages
  • JAIL4Judges
    Yes, Tom, it sounds like you are after case experiences of which I personally have a few. In the past days when I litigated cases, I brought suit in a
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 21, 2009
    • 0 Attachment



      Yes, Tom, it sounds like you are after case experiences of which I personally have a few. In the past days when I litigated cases, I brought suit in a particular which  was assigned to Judge Manuel Real here in Los Angeles . (You should find a load of case on him.)


      He wound up dismissing my case seven days after it was filed, and none of the defendants were served or even knew there was a case filed against them. I filed a 59(e) motion which reopened the dismissed case, and served the defendants in the meantime. Again, a few days later I received the paperwork back and a notice from the clerk that my case had been dismissed. I took the paperwork back downtown refilled it with notice that my 59(e) motion was currently pending before Manual Real, and I gave the date of the pending litigation. In the meantime, since I noticed the date of the pending motion purposely beyond the date that the defendants were required to answer, I filed a default against all of the defendants inasmuch as none responded in the case.


      Judge Manuel Real then told the clerk not to file the entry of default, although the law states that the Clerk of the Court shall enter default if a plaintiff petitions for it after the date provided for answer, and there be not answer on file. Thus, he ordered the default clerk to violate the law passed by Congress, which she did.


      I showed up for the 59(e) motion, where he “decided” to reaffirm his prior judgment of dismissal, saying, “If you need transportation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I will provide the bus fare.”


      I filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Attorney made an appearance on paper opposing my appeal. I argued that this was a default case with no appearance by any of the defendants and that no one could now appear for the very first time on the case on appeal. Furthermore, I pointed out that since the only people who had received the appellate brief were the justices themselves, how did anyone outside of the justices know to make an appearance. I suggested that perhaps the U.S. Attorney drove up to San Francisco and broke into the Ninth Circuit during the night wearing a black bandana and located which file drawer the justices’ briefs were in and used a pry bar and stole one of the briefs and answered it by the instant appearance. I then stated that if this scenario was incorrect, then there had to be a conspiracy by at least one of the justices hearing the appeal to give a copy to the U.S. Attorney so he could oppose it.


      Ultimately and “strangely” the Ninth Circuit affirmed Manuel Real’s dismissal of my case and the dismissal of my petition for default against all of the defendants even though this same Ninth Circuit twice on record reprimanded Judge Manuel Real for this same conduct of dismissing cases before the defendants were even served.


      This made it his third act of willful misconduct on the record, and I filed a criminal complaint with the U.S. Attorney for willfully violating the Ninth Circuit Court orders to follow due process.  


      I then filed a Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) for judicial misconduct against the three justices who affirmed and covered for Manuel Real clear misconduct. I then filed a second 372 against that panel for entering the conspiracy, which likewise affirmed the first panel. And lastly, a third panel against all, which was likewise dismissed. The bases for the dismissal was that I was challenging the decision of the court. But I raised the question of how a conspiracy of the justices with the U.S. Attorney in filing a opening brief in a default case was a “decision of the court,” arguing that this is clear collusion and misconduct, and had nothing to do with the decision of any court.


      Ultimately, I sought to take it to the U.S. Conferences of Judges, but was barred from filing the complaint. I then took it to Congress where I was told to hire myself an attorney. I had Attorney Gary Zerman respond to the my Congressman’s statement that I should consult an attorney. They did “receive” my complaint that the system itself was not working where my case was languishing in a black hole for “eternity,” and no one could or would every answer the petition, which brings us full circle around to the need for the Federal Judicial Accountability Bill, which they now continually ignore.


      - Ron Branson





      -----Original Message-----
      From: CryerLaw@... [mailto:CryerLaw@...]
      Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:17 PM
      To: JAIL4Judges
      Subject: Re: Exposing Judges




      I found a list of horror stories posted on the site, but not a  directory

      of rogue judges.  I may be looking at the wrong place, but the  links you

      provided are email addresses.


      I haven't worked up the first inductee, yet, but the format  will include

      identifying info, name, court, appointment, etc., photo where  available,

      followed by a general description of the abominable conduct with  links to

      supporting document(s).  If you have any posts that would provide  that type of

      story let me know. 


      The ones we have now are those I've noted through my own  experiences, such

      as the judge who, without motion or basis, dismissed a motion  to quash

      summonses simply "because the government is opposed to the  petition".  He did

      that after learning from DOJ that I had filed  interrogatories that would

      force them to admit that a Special Agent had violated  the automatic stay

      effected by the petition and attempted to deceive and then  intimidate the

      summonsees to violate the stay.  There was no way to legally  dismiss the case

      before answers were required, so he did it  illegally.


      Another is the judge sitting on the Kotmair 6700 case who  totally

      disregarded the fact that the government provided no support for it's  list of

      "undisputed facts" set out in its MSJ and 21 affidavits filed in  opposition

      proving a genuine dispute as to every one of them. 


      Another is the judge sitting on the Benson book-burning case  who, when

      Bill filed something like 64 exhibits establishing genuine fact issues  (no MSJ

      possible) ordered all 64 exhibits struck and, since defendant "filed no 

      opposing exhibits" granted the MSJ.


      Still another is the judge who reshuffled the jury after  learning that one juror was afraid the government might be trying to "set her  up".  The twelve jurors were already seated and then two alternates subsequently selected.  At the end of the trial the judge decided to use a lottery system to select two new alternates over the objection of the  defendant.  The questionable woman's name was the first drawn and when the  defense attorney asked to examine the slips in the box the clerk held up a fist  of slips and said "Now you've seen them" and fled the courtroom.


      One in St. Louis , during a side bar, held up a piece of paper  (that had

      nothing to do with the comment) and loudly stated, within hearing of  the jury

      "The IRS has already determined they are shams and we are not  going behind



      Last week, at the conclusion of a trial on a 14 felony count  indictment

      the judge gave the defense counsel 15 minutes for closing  arguments.  It was

      a complicated case and she gives him one minute per  count?


      You might have heard of the trial of our infamous Edwin  Edwards, three

      time governor of Louisiana , where when faced with a hung jury the  judge

      determined that one juror was holding out against conviction so he removed  the

      juror for failing to cooperate and replaced him with an alternate.  It  was

      later learned that throughout the trial the judge was under the influence of 

      powerful prescription drugs.  Edwards was a crook, no doubt, but if he 

      isn't entitled to a fair trial then neither are we.


      Each induction into the Hall of Shame will be followed by a  press release

      to media in the judge's area publicizing his honor's new honor and  a copy

      to the Court Admin Office.


      I would bet ten bucks to a donut that you have a lot  more.  Gimme.





      In a message dated 4/20/2009 6:00:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 

      victoryusa@... writes:



      Hello Tom. We post most all our expose material that  comes to us and is

      published, upon JAIL4judges@egroups.com also known  as JAIL4Judges@yahoogroups.com It started as egroups prior to the existence of yahoogroups.com. I am the sole  poster, so you need not worry about clutter by the populace. You are free to grab anything thereon and post it, either current, or in our archives going  back to the turn of this past century.


      Also, I am posting below the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill  that has been presented

      repeatedly to Congress and is awaiting for any  Congressman to pick it up

      and run with. The problem is that the Congressmen  enjoy not having the

      Federal Judiciary being a check and balance over them.  Thomas Jefferson said on

      November 10, 1798,  “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of

      confidence in man, but  bind him down from mischief by the chains of the



      Obviously, Congress does not like being bound down  from mischief by the

      chains of the Constitution, so they entreat their jail keepers, the Federal

      Judiciary, who are holding the keys to those chains, to  grant them leniency.

      This is why there is a total conflict of interest in  pursuing a remedy

      from Congress over the Federal Judiciary which is supposed  to hold Congress

      accountable to the Constitution. It is very easy to figure  out.





      Federal  Judicial Accountability 

      &  Integrity Legislation 

      (Federal Legislation - Version  9/1/03)


      (a) Preamble. The House of  Representatives and Senate Assembled find: that

      an inordinate and ever-growing  number of complaints for willful misconduct

      have been lodged with Congress  involving federal judges across this

      nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C.  §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and

      Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate  due to conflicts of interest of judges

      judging themselves; that judicial  integrity is of major importance which

      affects all areas of our American  society. Be it therefore resolved that the

      House of Representatives and Senate  Assembled hereby enact the following

      legislation which shall be known as the  "Judicial  Accountability and

      Integrity  Legislation."

      (b)  Definitions. For  purposes of this statute:

      1. The  term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful

      conclusion of a  case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void

      judgment  or order.

      2. The  term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice,

      judge,  magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial  immunity.

      3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand  Juror.

      4. The  term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon

      bad behavior  as set forth by paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set

      forth in  paragraph (r).

      Where  appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural

      the  singular.

      (c) Immunity. Notwithstanding  common law or any other provision to the

      contrary, no immunities shall be  extended to any federal judge except as is

      specifically set forth in this  statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting

      judges from frivolous and  harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to  extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional  violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts,  judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case,  or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all  violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.

      (d) Special Federal Grand Jury.  There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal  judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.

      (e) Professional Counsel. The  Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain  non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall  be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand  Jury.

      (f) Establishment of a Special Federal  Grand Jury Seat. A Special Federal

      Grand Jury seat is hereby  created, which seat shall be located in excess of

      one mile of any federal  judicial body. 

      (g) Filing Fees. Attorneys  representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special  Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing  fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals  filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in  their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a  fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.

      (h)  Annual Funding.   Should this statute lack sufficient funding through

      its filing fees under paragraph (g), and fines imposed under paragraph (q),

      which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account

      created by this statute in paragraph (j) for its operational expenses, Congress shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any  and all the necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation.

      (i) Compensation of Jurors. Each  Juror shall receive a salary commensurate

      to fifty percent of a federal  district judge prorated according to the

      number of days actually served.  

      (j) Annual Budget. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual

      operational budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the

      twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive  trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust  balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United  States Treasury.

      (k) Jurisdiction.    The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except  as provided in paragraph (r), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be  considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have  first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is

      intended to apply remedially and  retroactively. 

      (l) Qualifications of Jurors. A  Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United  States , and an inhabitant of Washington , D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

      (m) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn  by public lot  by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.

      (n) Service of Jurors. Excluding  the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall  serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each  month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new  Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be  filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly  rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the  remainder of the term of the Juror replaced. 

      (o) Procedures. The Special  Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the

      filed complaint upon the subject  judge and notice to the complainant of such

      service. The judge shall have  thirty days to serve and file an answer. The

      complainant shall have twenty  days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon

      timely request, the Special Federal  Grand Jury may provide for extensions

      for good cause.) In criminal matters,  the Special Federal Grand Jury shall

      have power to subpoena witnesses,  documents, and other tangible evidence, and

      to examine witnesses under oath.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall

      determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing

      within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued  against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal  Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days  shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury  shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the  people of these United States with the duty of restoring a  perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all  influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on  any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall  not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal  Grand Jury. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine  any matter.

      (p) Removal. Whenever any  federal judge shall have received more than

      three strikes, the federal judge  shall automatically be brought up on charges

      before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand

      Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct.

      Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge  shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any  other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.

      (q) Indictment. Should the  Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable

      cause of criminal conduct on the  part of any federal judge against whom a

      complaint is docketed, it shall have  the power to indict such federal judge

      except where double jeopardy attaches.  The Special Federal Grand Jury shall,

      without voir dire beyond personal  impartiality, relationship, or linguistics, cause to be impaneled special  trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that  they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge, (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be).  The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within  these United States . Upon conviction, the special trial  jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be

      derived by an average of the  sentences of the trial jurors.

      (r) Criminal Procedures. In  addition to any other provisions of this

      statute, a complaint for criminal  conduct of a federal judge may be brought

      directly to the Special Federal  Grand Jury upon all the following

      prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal  conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within  ninety (90) days of the commission of the

      alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor  declines to prosecute, or one hundred

      twenty (120) days has passed following  the lodging of such affidavit and

      prosecution has not commenced; (3) an  indictment, if sought, has not been

      specifically declined on the merits by a  Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute

      of limitations has not run. Any  criminal conviction (including a plea

      bargain) under any judicial process  shall constitute a strike.

      (s) Public Indemnification. No  federal judge complained of, or sued

      civilly by a complainant pursuant to this  statute shall be defended at public

      expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal

      judge be reimbursed from public funds  for any losses sustained under this


      (t) Redress. The provisions of  this statute are in addition to other

      redress that may exist and are not  mutually exclusive.

      (u) Preeminence.   Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case

      of conflicts with any  other federal statutes, case law, or common law to the

      contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or

      cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually

      during the first week of  business in January and July.


      -----Original Message-----

      From: CryerLaw@...  _[mailto:CryerLaw@...]_


      Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 6:20 AM

      To: JAIL4Judges

      Subject:  Exposing Judges




      I'm attaching an opening for a new section of the  Truth Attack web site. It is aimed at federal judges and we have some judges  we're working up already.  But if we can get your people to report  abuses and asinine comments and actions of other federal judges we can expose them  to  ridicule and (heaven forbid) embarrassment they've earned.


      We still have writers across the country ready to write and publish articles in the judge's neighborhood if only to report  that the judge  has earned a place of dishonor on the internet.


      It is not rational for us to do nothing until we can hold  these godlets 

      accountable by law.  We need to hold them accountable by any right we have.  


      If we can add a right to call them down legally that will be great, but until then we need to use our right to call them down publicly. This is what I was talking about when I proposed that  your  network and organization can do a great deal of good if they will serve as the eyes and ears so we can serve as the voice, holding these  egomaniacal jerks out for public scorn.  A little public scorn won't hurt your efforts in obtaining legislation, either.




    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.